Both its defenders and detractors
have described the argument from marginal cases as the most important
to date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophers
for some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevant
characteristic distinguishes human beings including infants, the
severely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases"--from
any other animals.
Babies and Beasts presents
the first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relating
to the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its various
uses and abuses.
Daniel Dombrowski analyzes
the views of many who are prominent in the debate--
Peter Singer, Thomas Regan, H. J. McCloskey, Jan Narveson, John Rawls,
R. G. Frey, Peter Carruthers, Michael Leahy, Robert Nozick, and James
Rachels are included--in a volume that will be essential to philosophers,
animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and others
who must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."
have described the argument from marginal cases as the most important
to date in defense of animal rights. Hotly debated among philosophers
for some twenty years, the argument concludes that no morally relevant
characteristic distinguishes human beings including infants, the
severely retarded, the comatose, and other "marginal cases"--from
any other animals.
Babies and Beasts presents
the first book-length exploration of the broad range of views relating
to the argument from marginal cases and sorts out and evaluates its various
uses and abuses.
Daniel Dombrowski analyzes
the views of many who are prominent in the debate--
Peter Singer, Thomas Regan, H. J. McCloskey, Jan Narveson, John Rawls,
R. G. Frey, Peter Carruthers, Michael Leahy, Robert Nozick, and James
Rachels are included--in a volume that will be essential to philosophers,
animal rights activists, those who work in clinical settings, and others
who must sometimes deal with "marginal cases."
Share This Book: